update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

There was something I watched about anticipation where it was proved that the brain was preparing to react to an unknown occurence which would follow, unknowingly to the patient.Personally, I think it's irrelevant to put stock in one particular theory over another. Whether it's evolution, or anticipation or whatever - the fact is that nobody has actually logically proven that any one theory is certainly true.All man has is induction, which is weak and tentative. While his efforts are admirable, they are ultimately feeble and inconclusive, pertaining to the actual history of creation.You can build a case for anything really, if you can state that vague evidence X would follow theory Y.Personally I think the whole thing is about beliefs, as neutrally there is no reason to favour one theory over another. I apreciate that the evidence is apparently there for evolution,(i.e. I don't say scientists are dishonest) but epistemologically, evidence itself is not a powerful inference, and evolution is largely hypothetics. There is a large amount of evidence for creation, technically speaking, because certain facts are in place which would certainly follow if creation was true.Why can mikey question evolution? Because it can be questioned.I can't question matter, nor any other facts. Atleast not in this manner, if we define knowledge as "justified true belief". Thuse we have this debate which goes on forever. This is why it's better to trust in the unchanging Word rather than changeable limited man theories.

Just one last comment, Ned, because I feel that people jump to conclusions when they read my posts. It is natural.I favour creationism subjectively, and personally.. I agree with the first part to an extent, in that it is only a huge amount of evidence when the technical specifics of evolution are assumed to have weight, and/or other confirming factors, such as geological opinion. (catastrophism is out, uniformatarianism is in, alas, the stars show distance, mikey cannot win. ).Define "scientific evidence".I define evidence as something which doesn't prevent a theory from being viable AND something which would correlate with that theory.LOGICALLY, your side overplays evidence when they say that there isn't any evidence for creation, when infact there was evidence in the past which favoured theories which are now accepted as false.So, this attitude of fear, by saying there is no evidence for creation, infact has no rational basis. Logically it's easy to show an evidence for creation by simply showing the modus ponen being affirmed.Example;IF Creation was true, then we would expect mass devastation recorded in the earth.We find mass devastation in the fossil record, which is REQUIRED, if creation as a theory is to be viable.Do not misunderstand me, this is in no way proof that creation happened, but one confirmation that is vital. Many would agree, even scientists, that a flood would show millions of dead things thereafter. I don't see why such an obvious logical clarity should be thrown away simply because you personally want to claim that you own evidence on a personal basis. No, evidence is evidence, and always was and I shall stick to it's accepted definition.Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com As you can see, his flushed look could infact be because he was blushing, and not because of his fever. The first signs of spring could infact be a temporary change in the weather.Evidence is not proof. Number 1, says "tends" because a proof certainly follows, whereas if evidence was certain proof, there could be no theories at all. It is accepted that his flushed look is one confirmation of his fever, but it is also confirmation of a blush because BOTH THEORIES ARE VIABLE AND EQUIVALENTLY CORRESPOND TO A FLUSHED FACE.( i.e. If he has a fever, then he would have a flush, if he has an embarrasment, then he has a blush. )Apologies for geting off course, this is my final information input Ned-boss.

I agree, as that doesn't show the modus tollens, which would be the falsification. (If there was no destruction/death, in the earth, then there was no creation).My point is that evolution, or any theory - IS a proposition, with regard of the facts. Creation itself regards the facts, i.e. the fossils.One confirmation is not a proof, it is just the beginning of an induction. I could also theorize that Apollo had a fight with the sphagetti monster causing the death of all animals.BUT - the bible is infact apriori, in that is states worldwide flood and death BEFORE human knowledge of fossils. No - that is posteriori, we must predict and then see if those predictions follow. The bible said there was a flood before knowledge of the fossils (facts).Usually evolutionists accuse creationists of having a posteriori theory but it is hypocritical because one can not come up with any theory without firstly observing a degree of what would be essential to any potential speculation.i.e. Every fact known now makes our speculations post-fact. BUT - IRONICALLY, the bible, logically, gives us an apriori claim to the facts as regarding fossils, so I regard this as a fairly strong confirmation of creation, logically.

It's irrelevant, because contingency is distinguished. i.e. In human history, the popular accepted search was for a natural explanation - there is no search for evidence of creation, however - logically there is evidence of creation.You missed that post to you that defined evidence. There is still evidence for theories that are no longer popularly accepted.HOW?(Because of induction. If there was no evidence for false theories they would never get off the ground. I don't know how much you know about deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning, but a better understanding of the two lead you to a conclusion that evidence is easy to come by, but BECAUSE it is easy to come by - theories are hard to prove unless they have a huge induction, thus it is hard to get a paradigm shift.)There are possible alternatives, and I find that the evolutionary explanations that answer for the problems we see, are insufficient. Living fossils for example - I believe flesh being preserved on dino bones , etc...all these evidences are more logically explained with the Creation model, and it is the job of scientists to prove otherwise, and protect their theory - but the explanations are poor nowadays because of the comfortable acceptance of evolution. Anyone who thinks deeply enough can find holes.You can't just expect me to buy science over what logic can tell me. Popular acceptance of evolution isn't enough to prove it. You only have an induction of evidence which does not give a crystal clear inference of evolution.As for micro-evolution, I don't even discuss it - it is so logically inept as an example that I find it almost amusing. There simply is no conflation between some bacteria changes, and what I define as completely new systems in fully formed animals.The fallacy of composition will help you here. It's not enough to simply state that lots of little will give you a lot. LOL!! That truly disregards logic. You have to REMEMBER what logic says about ANY CLAIM. That you have to PROVE it - not simply jump from the unit to the whole.Unconvincing to me personally. I can't help that - intellectually the arguments don't satisfy me, as I find errors in them.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It's a good question. And I understand where you're coming from. The problem is that it's subjective isn't it. To me, there is no explaining how unlikely I think evolution is, along with abiogenesis. To me, that is off the scale, that the designs we see popped up by chance from the primordial soup. I completely give way to people's right to believe that and search it out - and postulate, but you have to understand that from a personal viewpoint, or "worldview", I will never convince my mind that the universe wasn't created.You can think of God as an imaginery being - but that won't remove what is before my eyes. That being the incredible universe, and the designs I see and contemplate in nature.I do my own thinking, so I don't refer to the "designs" that are usually debated here on these boards.Listen - if there's some great art going down and no one wants to look at it - is it great art? I suppose it's up to you. I am not trying to convince you my God exists, as I can't do that.(sorry for my long spells away from evc, I post from the library).

Not really because the bible was accepted as true before the fact. Back in the day people found fossils and said; "look - just like the bible tells us". You can't have it both ways. Either it matters or it doesn't. It doesn't because that's what the bible said happened. We see mass death. You can't distinguish between gradual uniformitarianism or sudden catastrophism with any proof, so logically there is no X over Y. It is not proved either way.You infact favour evolution subjectively, as in reality, there is nothing stopping the history of the flood if that's what happened in history.Since there is no proof either way - logically or scientifically you statement doesn't have credence. Science nor logic would claim that the fossil favour evolution. Only individuals do that.